Switch to turn off soil erosion in CAM for dust emissions#748
Conversation
modified: bld/namelist_files/namelist_definition.xml modified: src/chemistry/modal_aero/dust_model.F90
modified: src/chemistry/bulk_aero/dust_model.F90
modified: src/chemistry/modal_aero/dust_model.F90
ekluzek
left a comment
ekluzek
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The default for soil_erod_active should be TRUE, until we bring the changes into the CTSM side, when it'll be FALSE. Looks like this is only documented wrong in the namelist definition file.
| <entry id="soil_erod_active" type="logical" category="cam_chem" | ||
| group="dust_nl" valid_values="" > | ||
| Switch to turn on/off soil erodibility for dust emissions in CAM. | ||
| Default: FALSE |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Default should be TRUE, until after this is in CTSM and always on in there.
|
ESCOMP/CTSM#1967 now has the corresponding changes in CTSM. |
|
This also relates to #778. This will also update both CMEPS and CTSM, so will happen after those tags are made. The CMEPS issue is: ESCOMP/CMEPS#353 |
|
Added a design doc about this here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18nZ3LJF5W-YF9iBhqed6s_NWeKOvSSL2-k0Lye1nnLg |
|
When we are closer to having this all together and working, we should validate that the dust emission is similar when in CTSM as in CAM by comparing results between the two. We expect answers to be different by greater than roundoff, but they should be qualitatively similar. |
|
@fvitt note that the CMEPS PR has been tagged as cmeps0.14.73. The PR to use that in CTSM is ESCOMP/CTSM#2545. Once the CTSM tag is in place this one could come in. |
|
The latest CAM (cam6_4_015) has already updated beyond the needed CMEPS tag (to cmeps1.0.2), so this can start to be changed to use the namelist items in the drv_flds_in for dust_emis_inparm. If this PR is hard to update, it could also be restarted from the latest CAM tag. |
|
@ekluzek Thanks for the comments and pointing me to this PR. I will probably start a new branch and PR this is quite old... |
3 participants
closes #651
closes #141